The Australian Workers Union v Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd [2000] FCA 360

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Australian Workers Union v Johnson Matthey (Aust) Ltd [2000] FCA 360

INDUSTRIAL LAW – industrial action by employees – whether protected action – dismissal and threatened dismissal of employees – whether dismissal and threatened dismissal by respondent employer constitutes contravention of s170MU and/or s298K of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – whether respondent employer offered employees inducements to resign from registered organisation in contravention of s298M of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) - whether conduct alleged by the applicant made out

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 170MM, 170MO, 170MU, 298K, 298L, 298M, 298V

Davids Distribution Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers (1999) 91 FCR 463 distinguished Burswood Resort (Management) Ltd v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union [1999] FCA 1443 distinguished

Ryde-Eastwood Leagues Club Limited v Taylor (1994) 56 IR 385 referred to

Walplan Pty Ltd v Wallace (1985) 8 FCR 27 followed

Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd & Ors v Maritime Union of Australia & Ors (1988) 195 CLR 1 applied

Jones v Thiess Bros (1977) 30 FLR 422 followed

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION v JOHNSON MATTHEY (AUST) LTD

(ACN 004 146 838)

V 425 OF 1999

MARSHALL J

MELBOURNE

31 MARCH 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 425 OF 1999

BETWEEN: THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS UNION

APPLICANT

AND: JOHNSON MATTHEY (AUST) LTD

(ACN 004 146 838)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: MARSHALL J

DATE OF ORDER: 31 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. It is declared that the respondent contravened s170MU(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the Act") by: (a) dismissing Mr Mrmacoski, (b) injuring Mr Mrmacoski in his employment, and (c) altering the position of Mr Mrmacoski to his prejudice; wholly or partly because Mr Mrmacoski proposed to engage in protected action. 2. It is declared that the respondent contravened s170MU(1)(a) of the Act by: (a) dismissing Mr Naumovski, (b) injuring Mr Naumovski in his employment, and (c) altering the position of Mr Naumovski to his prejudice; wholly or partly because Mr Naumovski proposed to engage in protected action. 3. It is declared that the respondent contravened s298K(1) of the Act by: (a) dismissing Mr Mrmacoski, (b) injuring Mr Mrmacoski in his employment, and (c) altering the position of Mr Mrmacoski to his prejudice; for reasons which included a reason that Mr Mrmacoski was a member of the applicant.